Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, commentary, part 3
Reading Dawkins requires a good deal of patience. There just isn't enough time in the day to argue against everything he says. The idea of "memes" as the cultural analogy to "genes" and the potential for a Darwinian type of explanation for why religion evolves is one. It can be addressed on both logical grounds (Why is an inclination toward the supernatural present such that the meme can take off? Does this not argue for a "genetic" basis? Does this not give some independent support for the idea that man, as created, has "eternity in his heart?" [Eccl. 3:11]) and factual (Identify a "meme" such that it can be clearly demonstrated as being independent of subjective declaration - i.e. on what basis is a "meme" defined such that independent observers will always agree on particular components). I haven't thought much about these things but Dawkins use of them doesn't strike me as particularly impressive.
But it is on the Religion and Morality thing that something HAS to be said.
Dawkins, like most humanists, fails in his fundamental analysis of human nature and then seeks to discredit religion because it doesn't produce the utilitarian results that would commend it.
Here is the simple argument. Humanists believe that man is essentially a moral animal with a prevailing, though ill defined imperative toward that which we call "good" behavior. Dawkins believes that this imperative is the result of Darwinian processes which have come about through the advantage certain gene-coded altruistic behaviors add benefit to the society. Like honey bees or other types of creatures (of which he gives examples) man, on the whole, has evolved with a tendency, a general inclination, toward doing good things - toward helping others, toward generosity, etc. In short, man has an inclination toward nobility but it is in conflict with self-interest and therefore may not always be as strong as it ought to be.
Dawkins phrases this imperative as a "lust to be generous and compassionate" so as to highlight that this moral sense is foundationally no different than the Darwinian advantage sexual pressures impart to us. But the bottom line is this. Mankind is genetically disposed toward morality and toward a moral code which perpetuates the specie. In his thinking, this disposition is toward a moral code that is good. (Logically one could argue why a "good" moral code is inherently more advantageous than one which is not - an argument that has been advanced and answers given in other works.)
One of Dawkins arguments against religion then is that it is not necessary for man to have religion in order to be "good", to be moral. It is built into us. We don't need religion to be good. In fact, as he argues, there is no substantial proof that high conditions of morality are ensured by a prevalence of religion at all, even in Christianity - a fact which all Christians deplore but do not particularly deny. Hence, in Dawkins claim, there is no utilitarian value to religion because it does not, prima facie, conduce to morality.
Like most humanists, Dawkins assumptions blind him to the facts. Christianity does not state that the presence of religion in a community will make people more moral. In fact, the Scriptures are very clear that the historical trend of the religious community (ancient Israel) was toward depravity in spite of their religion. There is a reason why the last chapters of the book of Judges depict ancient Israel as being essentially no different than Sodom and Gomorrah. There is a reason why the books of 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles tell of Israel's continued struggle with idolatry, perversion, murder, lawlessness, greed, etc. etc. etc.
Christianity does not proclaim that Religion conduces to greater morality in the community. Christianity explains why religion does not conduce to greater morality. Christianity explains the facts of life and demonstrates the nature of those facts. Christianity does not, contra Dawkins, say that there could exist a situation ( if every one were educated, culturally sensitized, enlightened) wherein police would not be absolutely necessary to impose standards of right conduct on people. Christianity explains that police are absolutely essential, that they are in fact ministers of God, and that apart from them, lawlessness will abound. Exactly what the facts Dawkins presents in his case studies (i.e. the police strike in Canada in 1969) seem to prove.
Christianity does not proclaim that religion is to a utilitarian end - that the adoption of religion makes people more moral. Christianity proclaims that men and women are fallen and that the depths of depravity are only a hairs breadth away from any person who is walking amongst the briars and thorns in this life. All may fall. Judas fell. Peter fell. Paul, as Saul of Tarsus, helped with the stoning of Stephen.
The uniform proclamation of Christianity is that, at root, man is a sinner and that he is not essentially altruistic at all. Altruism, where naturally present in a human being, represents a yearning for something lost that gets translated into deeds which give a semblance of comfort, a self-deluding moment of hope, that maybe it has not been totally lost after all.
Man is not essentially good. Man is essentially evil. The only difference between a baby shark and a full grown Great White, is time and opportunity. The basic disposition is the same. The only difference between a baby sinner and a full grown pervert, is time and opportunity. Christianity proclaims that the way you prevent baby sinners from fulfilling their potential to be full grown perverts, is by restraint. It is restraint of sin which is needed. That restraint comes in several fashions - it is through social mores and laws as well as by inculcating the idea that absolute justice is inevitable. This does not mean that people become more moral, more righteous, more good. It means that they cannot act out their most evil impulses.
The ancient Greeks knew something about this. The had a word for it - paideia. Christianity explains it fully and comprehensively. Dawkins entire argument is reduced to smoke and mirrors. There is no truth there.
I mean Fitt* as!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Carl Savage | October 19, 2009 at 06:44 AM
Hi, my names Carl.. i think Richard Dawkins is fatt as!!!!
Posted by: Carl Savage | October 19, 2009 at 06:43 AM
Blog entry was posted in response to your questions....
Posted by: Gadfly | February 19, 2007 at 10:52 AM
To keep this chain from getting too long, I will take your last post and respond in a full blog posting. I should get to it today or tomorrow ( I just arrived back home from leave). Thanks for the questions.
Posted by: Gadfly | February 12, 2007 at 10:36 AM
RE: "Christianity explains the facts of life and demonstrates the nature of those facts. "
What facts of life does christianity explain? And what facts can human beings NOT explain without recourse to christianity?
RE: " Christianity explains that police are absolutely essential, that they are in fact ministers of God, and that apart from them, lawlessness will abound."
Where does christianity explain this? Is it your claim that a system of law and order would not exist without christianity? And if so, please demonstrate how this is so.
RE: "Christianity proclaims that men and women are fallen and that the depths of depravity are only a hairs breadth away from any person who is walking amongst the briars and thorns in this life."
Yes, it does proclaim that, but I don't consider that to be any different from any other religion which claims that without it, mankind is going to hell in a handbasket. So, this isn't a claim specifically that only christianity makes, most religions make the same claim. How do you demonstrate that man has indeed fallen from perfection and that what we see isn't just the result of the natural state of humankind?
RE: "Man is not essentially good. Man is essentially evil. The only difference between a baby shark and a full grown Great White, is time and opportunity. The basic disposition is the same."
So your claim is that people are essentially evil. Not an uncommon religious claim. But this doesn't demonstrate how christianity is superior to any other religion or to no religion at all.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | February 11, 2007 at 08:00 AM
Well, you claimed that christianity was the superior worldview. I was hoping for some substance to support this claim.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | February 08, 2007 at 05:33 PM
>>>How will you demonstrate that christianity is the superior worldview and the ultimate truth.<<<
Whether it is demonstrated or not depends on an agreement as to what constitutes "superior." Further, to adequately "demonstrate" something as broad as this requires a great deal more than some snippets of information passed back and forth. If you would like to commit to a fairly detailed exchange of views, back and forth, I will attempt to demonstrate what I have learned. I assume it is a sincere conversation. I would write a post on a particular aspect and develop it in dialog and then move on to the next aspect.
The ultimate criterion for "superiority" in my view would be that it explains the universe in a manner more conducive to hope than the contrary view. The other, intermediate views, always seem to fall into an internal inconsistency. That would be my manner of approach.
I am departing on study leave tomorrow and I expect my internet access to be spotty. However I will attempt to check in as close to daily as I can.
Posted by: Gadfly | January 30, 2007 at 07:31 PM
RE: ">>>In other words: - Christian worldview equals the superior worldview and any other wolrdivew is inferior?<<<<
The short answer, with respect and no intent to be flippant or dismissive, is "yes."
How will you demonstrate that christianity is the superior worldview and the ultimate truth.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | January 30, 2007 at 04:52 PM
>>>In other words: - Christian worldview equals the superior worldview and any other wolrdivew is inferior?<<<<
The short answer, with respect and no intent to be flippant or dismissive, is "yes."
Having a fair background in other cultures, a study of philosophy, a general knowledge of other belief systems including atheist/existentialist rationalism, I am convinced that its essential premises are that which conforms to ultimate truth as far as it has been revealed and made known.
I think there are two and only two internally consistent worldviews - each of which provide the person with a coherent interpretation of the world and can form the basis on which they may live consistently within those world views - one is rational, existentialism and the other is Christianity. I believe the former to be in error though it is a consistent error. Obviously I believe the latter to be ultimate truth.
Posted by: Gadfly | January 29, 2007 at 10:04 AM
RE: "That a person can rise above those assumptions is the entire basis of Christian evangelism."
So, a person has to rise above their cultural influences if it is NOT christian, but if he/she is in a christian culture, one doesn't need to rise above anything as they already are at the highest cultural religious level?
In other words: - Christian worldview equals the superior worldview and any other wolrdivew is inferior?
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | January 29, 2007 at 09:16 AM
If one assumes that a person never rises above his culturally predisposed religious assumptions, then I suppose that what you say would be the ultimate conclusion of the discussion. That a person can rise above those assumptions is the entire basis of Christian evangelism. That a person can successfully repudiate predisposed religious assumptions and in fact, rise to truth that those assumptions had hidden or distorted, is the universal testimony of history in cases such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wycliffe, Augustine of Hippo, etc. etc. etc.
So, for most folks who go through life unquestioning and pre-ooccupied with other things, what you say may be the case and it may be even the usual case. Socrates is quoted as saying "the unexamined life is not worth living" and I imagine that he said that just to rebuke those in his day who conformed to the cultural views with out penetration. But, his own life (and death), I believe, stands in contrast to your universal claim. So, I think there's more to it than just the shaping of our cultural assumptions.
Posted by: Gadfly | January 29, 2007 at 08:34 AM
RE: "That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not that religious view accurately represents the truth of the cosmos, in both its physical and spiritual aspects."
And how do we determine this? Basically if our culture supports the religious view then it conforms to our interpretation of the cosmos in both its physical and spiritual aspects.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | January 28, 2007 at 06:10 PM
I doubt seriously that anyone would dispute that people are "more than likely going to identify themselves" with the religious culture in which they were born and particularly that which their family embraced. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not that religious view accurately represents the truth of the cosmos, in both its physical and spiritual aspects.
It is only if one accepts that there is a true reality that is independent of our belief systems, that is accessible by man's capacities, that enables any kind of meaningful discourse between belief communities and any hope of having our beliefs actually correspond to that reality.
Posted by: Gadfly | January 28, 2007 at 06:05 AM
I think that we are basically a relfection of the culture in which we live. Those of us who are born, raised and live in a predominately "christian culture" are more than likely going to identify themselves as christians. Those who are born, raised and live in a predominately hindu culture, the same applies. More often than not, how religious affiliations are an indication of the geopolitical system in which we live, and the chronological period in which we live.
If I was born in pakistan, I would probably be a committed muslim. If I was born in the land now known as pakistan but 1000 years ago, I would probably been a committed buddhist. Most of our beliefs are a reflection of our culture, its geopolitcs and the time period in which we live it.
And of course, each of us, in our safe little worlds where most people relect the same cultual beliefs back at us, are convinced that our systems of beliefs must be right.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | January 28, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Interesting comment. Would you like to develop it a bit further? How, for example, do our "cultural personalities" orient us toward such things as "absolutes?" Do you recognize that there is truth outside what we learn and believe such that this cultural personality may either help or hinder us in pursuing that truth? Or is the entire concept of truth merely a context for expressing our cultural personality traits?
Posted by: Gadfly | January 26, 2007 at 10:25 AM
On the subjects of genetics -
Humans have the innate ability to learn or to believe many things. What may be innate is this cognitive ability to learn and also to believe.
Our respective "cultural personalities" will have the major influence over what we will learn or wht we will believe.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | January 25, 2007 at 07:54 PM